World Economic Forum – What India can teach the world about sustainability – Written by Arundhati Pandey, Vice-curator of the World Economic Forum’s Bhopal Global Shapers Hub. This article is part of India Economic Summit 2017

We are starting to witness the penalty for unsustainable lifestyles and patterns of production and consumption. As the human population is exploding, resources are shrinking.

Concerns loom everywhere, from declining pollinators affecting food security, to air and water pollution affecting the quality of life, and land shortage and degradation affecting both agriculture and biodiversity.

These are just some examples of the results of unsustainability. This is an important moment to find solutions for sustainable living, in harmony with Mother Earth.

India is home to one-sixth of the world’s people and it has the densest population. It also has the second-largest population after China, which it will surpass in less than a decade if current trends continue.

India is a country full of diversity and contradictions.

While per-capita emissions are amongst the lowest in the world, it is also the third biggest generator of emissions. Despite being the third largest economy in the world, India also has the largest number of people living below the international poverty line. Because of this sheer size and rapid growth, sustainability is a challenge.

In spite of these challenges, India is a conscious aspirant. It has shown leadership in combating climate change and meeting the Sustainable Developmental Goals (SDGs), as is reflected in many of its developmental schemes.

This commitment was acknowledged by the world in July this year at the UN’s High Level Political Forum, as it presented the Voluntary National Review Report on Implementation of Sustainable Development Goals.

India is one of the least wasteful economies. It has frequently been acknowledged by stakeholders for its cooperation and efforts to promote climate change mitigation, and environmental sustainability; this has been through policy measures, dialogue facilitation between nations, and taking decisive steps, especially after India emerged as a key player in shaping the Paris Agreement, along with adopting energy-efficiency measures.

Sustainability has always been a core component of Indian culture. Its philosophy and values have underscored a sustainable way of life.

For example, the yogic principle of aparigraha, which is a virtue of being non-attached to materialistic possessions, keeping only what is necessary at a certain stage of life. Humans and nature share a harmonious relationship, which goes as far as a reverence for various flora and fauna. This has aided biodiversity conservation efforts.

A great example is of the Bishnoi community in the Jodhpur region, Rajasthan, for whom the protection of wildlife is part of their faith. Yoga and Ayurveda are perhaps among the most well-known ways of holistic Indian living.

Sustainable and environmentally friendly practices and psyches still continue to be part of the lifestyle and culture. India has both a culture of hoarding (in case something might come in useful), and thriftiness (re-use and hand-me-downs). It is not an uncommon sight in an Indian household to witness an old cloth being used as a duster.

Things which have absolutely no value, such as old newspapers and books, or utensils, can be easily sold off to a scrap dealers to be re-used or re-cycled. Bucket baths, sun- drying clothes, and hand-washing dishes are other widespread, sustainable practices. Culturally, there is also an aversion to wasting food.

Rural communities, which constituted about 70% of the Indian population as of 2011, live close to nature and continue to live a simple and frugal lifestyle .

Greendex is an international report on sustainable living. The study compiled by National Geographic and Globescan measures the way consumers are responding to environmental concerns. The scores measure housing, transport, food and goods. India occupies a top spot on this index among 18 contenders, which also include China and the US. In particular, India received high scores in housing, transportation and food choices.

These results show that Indian consumers are most conscious about their environmental footprint and are making the most sustainable choices.

However, as the economy develops and grows further, socio-economic trends are shifting. The country’s achievements so far in no way negate the environmental concerns it still faces.

India and the world have a long and challenging way to go in dealing with environmental problems, and learning to live together in sustainable communities. We need to realize that development is more than economic, and sustainable development is a collective responsibility.

India does seem to have taken a lead. As a global family and village, we should come together to learn from each other, and good lessons can be drawn and implemented from both ancient wisdom, and scientific fact.

World Economic Forum – The UN has a 17-step plan to save the world – Written by Simon Brandon, Freelance journalist.

 

This article is part of the Sustainable Development Impact Summit

If you have too many things you need to do, it’s best to write them down. Saving the world, it seems, follows the same principle.

In 2015, the UN announced a 17-point to-do list to transform the world for the better. Between them, these sustainable development goals (SDGs) aim to end all poverty, fight inequality and tackle climate change within the next 15 years, in order to fulfil the UN’s 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.

The SDGs were agreed upon at a UN summit in September 2015 by a staggering 193 countries. Announcing them to the world, the UN declared: “We resolve, between now and 2030, to end poverty and hunger everywhere; to combat inequalities within and among countries; to build peaceful, just and inclusive societies; to protect human rights and promote gender equality and the empowerment of women.”

The stated goals are pithy and unequivocal, and contain between them 169 targets to be met by 2030. So what are they?

That’s some to-do list. It’s not the first of its kind, however. In 2000, the UN announced a set of eight millennium development goals (MDGs). There is plenty of overlap between the two lists; the MDGs included pledges to eradicate extreme poverty and hunger, to promote gender equality and to ensure environmental sustainability, for example.

But there are also big differences. The MDGs were aimed only at developing countries, while the SDGs are global. And despite their laudable intentions – not to mention some impressive progress – the MDGs came under fire from several quarters.

They were criticised for a lack of focus on social justice and inequality. The UN’s own assessment of progress towards the MDGs found that the needs of the most vulnerable – the poorest members of society, and those disadvantaged by gender, age, disability or ethnicity – were often overlooked. Another critique offered was that the goals had been drawn up without sufficient consultation of the very people they sought to help.

In crafting the SDGs, however, the UN took these criticisms on board. It launched what it called an “unprecedented outreach effort”, in which 5 million people from all over the world were consulted on their visions for the future. Nearly 10 million votes were cast in a survey of people’s priorities – the results are below:

The key to success, according to the UN, will be inclusivity: multi-stakeholder partnerships, as demanded by goal 17, that bring together local and regional governments, the private sector and civil society.

“Collaboration for the SDGs isn’t a nice to have, it’s an imperative. We need everyone: businesses and private investors must join with local stakeholders, governments, philanthropists, and experts,” says Terri Toyota, Head of Sustainable Development at the World Economic Forum. The Forum’s Sustainable Development Impact Summit will take place in September, aiming to make these connections happen.

The SDGs are unquestionably – and necessarily – ambitious, and time is short. With more than 18 months since the goals came into effect, what sort of progress has the world been making? In July this year, the UN published the first annual SDG progress report. The verdict: patchy.

“Implementation has begun, but the clock is ticking,” said UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres in a statement. “This report shows that the rate of progress in many areas is far slower than needed to meet the targets by 2030.”

It’s not all bad news, by any means. Remarkable progress has been achieved in some areas over the past two decades: the report points out that the number of people living in extreme poverty worldwide has fallen sharply from 1.7 billion in 1999 to 767 million in 2913, for example, while the numbers of deaths during pregnancy or childbirth fell by 37% between 2000 and 2015.

But overall, progress has been inconsistent. Goal 4, which calls for quality education for all, has so far enjoyed little success: the proportion of primary school age children out of education globally has remained around 9% since 2008. As for goal 17 – the call for partnerships to meet these targets – the report is blunt: “A stronger commitment to partnership and cooperation is needed to achieve the SDGs.”

There is still a long way to go to reach an ambitious destination. But nobody ever said saving the world would be easy.

 

World Economic Forum – We’re not turning wealth into wellbeing, Inequality has a major impact on a country’s wellbeing. Why? Written by Vincent Chin, Senior Partner and Managing Director, Head of South-East Asia, Boston Consulting Group

I’ve been in South Africa and the US recently. From geography to development both countries are, of course, very different. But they do share some similarities. Take inequality, for example. This issue – which is by no means limited to their shores – has become a deeply rooted feature of their social and economic landscapes, one that proven stubbornly resistant to attempted remedies.

Inequality has many invidious consequences – too many to list here. This is because it is one of the few issues that spans both the micro and macro. From the parents who can no longer be confident that their kids will be able to ascend the ladder of opportunity, to the fact it leads to increased government spending on healthcare, it is clear that its impact stretches far and wide.

That’s why we have placed inequality front and centre in the latest Sustainable Economic Development Assessment (SEDA). The report, which The Boston Consulting Group publishes annually, assesses the relative well-being of countries around the world and how well they convert wealth into well-being.

This year we found that income inequality, together with a country’s governance and civil society, has a major impact on the well-being of a country’s population. Why is this so?

Under the microscope

It’s important at the outset to remind ourselves why we look at well-being specifically. The fact is that increased GDP, while still important, is no longer seen as conclusive evidence that a country’s economic policies are working. A country may have a growing economy but, at the same time, large swathes of its population can remain struggling, seemingly cut off from the prosperity enjoyed the rich and powerful, and with little or no prospect of any upward mobility coming their way.

This issue has come to the fore particularly strongly in recent years. This is because the recovery of the global economy from the financial crisis of 2008 has not been felt by everyone. Sure, most businesses have bounced back and high net worth individuals are doing fine, but poverty rates remain high in many countries – both developed and developing – and the incomes of the poorest have stagnated or even declined. All this before the looming artificial intelligence revolution which promises to massively disrupt the labour market.

Such trends also explain why many in society have turned against globalisation – even though it has undoubtedly fuelled economic growth over the past 20 years. No wonder, then, that back in 2013 President Obama called it “the defining challenge of our time”. He was right to do so.

Countries constrained

Yet in looking at countries’ wealth and growth rates over time, we have observed performance rarely varies dramatically. This, we believe, is due to their institutional foundations. Steeped in tradition and resistant to change, such systems and conventions have proven unable to radically shift the way a country can convert wealth into well-being. Conservatism – with a small ‘c’ – often wins the day.

This unfortunate reality does not mask the fact that what policymakers really need to deliver is inclusive growth – prosperity that is shared way beyond the very top earners and trickles down to impact and improve the lives of the population as a whole. Sounds good, doesn’t it? Regrettably, turning this vision into reality is hardly the easiest of tasks. And while politicians tinker, the situation for the less fortunate in society is worsening.

The main issue is that as overall inequality increases, so, too, does the gap between the income of populations in the lower and the average income. This, in turn, leads to reduced access to key aspects of well-being – such as a good education system and effective healthcare. We tested this theory in SEDA, exploring whether inequality has a detrimental impact on average well-being levels, and found, not surprisingly, that income inequality is indeed a drag on the ability to convert wealth to well-being.

This conclusion has a number of repercussions. For example, the SEDA report specifically examined whether people living in countries with higher levels of income inequality are less happy than they otherwise would expected to be and we found are strong correlation between the two. Countries with high levels of income inequality tend to have a larger gap between well-being and happiness, according to our research.

Such findings also serve as a vivid reminder for politicians and public servants alike that inequality is an issue that can be kicked down the road no longer. It needs confronting here and now – starting with addressing the flaws in those institutions which have prevented a more dramatic shift in the way countries can turn the wealth of their economies into well-being for all their citizens.

The clock is ticking and the stakes are high. History will not judge kindly those whose paralysis today casts a shadow on those tomorrow.